Some recent developments fuel speculation as to what President Obama has in mind for the next four years in several areas.

Last week’s decision by a federal appeals court invalidating the president’s so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board raises questions as to whether he will put a brake on his habit of embracing novel and extravagant interpretations of his powers vis-a-vis Congress.

And what of Mr. Obama’s seeming acquiescence in outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s telling a congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attack that, in so many words, what happened was really none of its business? Does his silence indicate he hasn’t rethought his dismissive attitude toward the legislative branch?

And did the testimony of John Kerry at his confirmation hearings to succeed Ms. Clinton as secretary of state portend a return to the discredited Mideast policies of Mr. Obama’s first two years in office?

On Friday a federal appeals court ruled that the president violated the constitution last year when he invoked his power to make appointments without the “advise and consent” function of the Senate to install three nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. The president’s nominees had been facing serious Republican opposition so, on January 4, 2012, when Congress was on a holiday break but had not formally recessed, President Obama seized the moment and made his appointments.

The problem is that in the time-honored fashion followed by both Democrats and Republicans, for a few minutes every three days a handful of GOP senators appeared on the Senate floor with one rising to the rostrum, banging the gavel and declaring the Senate in session. Historically this practice had always passed muster under Senate rules. Mr. Obama, though, rejected what he called a “sham” and asserted the right to decide something that was thought to be the prerogative of the Senate.

The decision is a complicated one and the court went beyond the immediate question of the NRB appointments. Yet at the very least it puts into sharp focus the important issue of our president’s way of dealing with rules that stymie his initiatives: he trashes them.

It will be recalled that he acted similarly with respect to federal immigration laws when he disagreed with provisions that called for certain illegal aliens to be deported. He simply ordered the Immigration and Nationalization Service not to enforce the law –despite the fact that Congress had repeatedly declined to amend the legislation to his liking.

The president made no public statement about Secretary Clinton’s testimony before two congressional committees seeking to learn what the White House and State Department roles were before, after and during the Benghazi attack and why there was such confusion in official statements about the run-up to it. He also said nothing of substance in a joint “60 Minutes” interview with Ms. Clinton.

Indeed, the gist of Ms. Clinton’s testimony was that she relied on subordinates and had no personal knowledge. And she gave a non sequitur response to a question about why, initially, official statements drew attention away from any terrorist involvement:

Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

The president, as noted, has yet to comment.

And did Mr. Kerry speak for the president during his nomination hearing? This is not just idle curiosity. The Jerusalem Post story on the Kerry hearing was titled, “Kerry Wants To Hit Ground Running on Peace Talks.” Sounds a lot like what President Obama’s priorities were four years ago.

More troubling still was his analysis that the furtherance of U.S. interests around the world is being bottled up by the lack of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians: “So much of what we need to aspire to achieve and what we need globally…all of this is tied to what can and doesn’t happen with respect to Israel/Palestine.”

Mr. Kerry inadvertently called to mind the failed Obama outreach to the Muslim world with his response to a question about the U.S. going through with its agreement to give Egypt F-16s and Abrams tanks even after Egyptian President Morsi referred to Jews and Israelis as descendants of apes and pigs and said Muslim children should be taught to hate them.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

6 Responses to “Obama Rules”

Guns & bullets, Drones & missiles…
We have only hours left at the White House,
the petition expires tomorrow, Jan. 31.
"End the DRONES…Stop the killing of children".
Tell President Barack Obama to stop.
killing children in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Pakistan and Arab countries.
using C.I.A. ordered un-manned computer.
controlled Drone Strikes deploying.
missiles aimed at "terrorists" but which.
kill more children!
Sign this petition:
"End the DRONES… Stop the killing of.
children and innocent civilians."https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

"It will be recalled that he acted similarly with respect to federal immigration laws when he disagreed with provisions that called for certain illegal aliens to be deported. He simply ordered the Immigration and Nationalization Service not to enforce the law –despite the fact that Congress had repeatedly declined to amend the legislation to his liking."

This is not correct. The people affected by this order are in fact eligible to be in the United States legally; he was just waiving the previous rule that required them to go through the hassle and expense of returning to their home countries. It is the kind of reduction in government regulation that conservatives used to support, until they realized that there was more mileage in bashing foreigners and bashing Obama.

"Yet at the very least it puts into sharp focus the important issue of our president’s way of dealing with rules that stymie his initiatives: he trashes them."

The Republicans are every bit as much at fault here. Not liking that law that gives workers collective bargaining rights, they refuse to allow votes on the members of the Board that enforces those rights. Unable to get a majority in Congress to take away collective bargaining rights, they simply make it impossible to enforce the law.

And the same thing is true for the other recess appointment, of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. Believing that abusive financial institutions should be able to run roughshod over consumers, and objecting to the fact that the previous Congress had enacted some reforms that put some limits on those abuses, yet unable to repeal the law, they simply make it impossible to enforce the law by refusing to allow a vote on the head of the Board.

This editorial criticized Obama for refusing to enforce laws he doesn't like. The editorial would be more effective had it also pointed out that Republicans actively prevent the enforcement of laws that THEY don't like.

Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, provided one of the clearest and most compelling analyses we’ve seen of the importance of the prime minister’s speech.

Gone are the days when an anchorman sitting in a New York studio could, after sharing 22 minutes of carefully selected and edited news items, trumpet in stentorian tones, “And that’s the way it is.” No it wasn’t. It never was.

President Obama has frequently cautioned that Americans should take great care to avoid fomenting anti-Muslim passions in our reaction to the murderous activities regularly being perpetrated by terrorists in the name of Islam. One wonders why, though, he seems to have no concern with the potential for anti-Semitic fallout from his full-court press against Israeli […]

Typical of the administration’s milquetoast approach is the lack of any call for a substantial increase in military resources in order to crush ISIL, only a tepid mention of the need to “ultimately defeat” it.

In this particular case, the issue was whether the Arkansas prison system could prohibit, for security reasons, a devout Muslim’s maintaining a beard of a certain length as a matter of religious practice.

According to Natan Sharansky, director of the Jewish Agency for Israel, France was the largest source of Jewish emigration to Israel last year and he believes as many as 15,000 French Jews may make aliyah in 2015.